The Minister of the Interior announced on Monday his intention to eliminate State Medical Aid and replace it with emergency aid for foreigners. A proposal that has sparked controversy.
:quality(50)/2023/07/07/64a7df4c5fe71_placeholder-36b69ec8.png)
Published
Updated
Reading time: 2 min
:quality(50)/2023/10/10/ame-6524eaeec5d69316071188.jpg)
Reducing State Medical Aid to emergency aid for foreigners is the desire of the new Minister of the Interior Bruno Retailleau. The tenant of Beauvau said it on Monday, September 23 on TF1: he intends to use his regulatory power to limit free care for foreigners in an irregular situation. But this project, which has sparked controversy and has been back in the public debate for years, has been received with mixed reactions in the National Assembly. It is even contested by members of the presidential camp who are supposed to support the government.
Laurent Marcangeli, president of the Horizon deputies, put forward his group’s position in the Hall of Four Columns: “We are opposed to this. We said this during the review of the asylum and immigration law. My group is largely opposed to the elimination and modification of the systems linked to State Medical Aid.”
Does the Prime Minister want to do this by decree, without going through Parliament? “I don’t think this is the best idea,” comments Laurent Marcangeli. But other deputies from MoDem or Ensemble pour la République are open to a reduction in State Medical Aid. Starting with Mathieu Lefèvre, a member of the right wing of Renaissance who supports the Minister of the Interior. “I think that we should not make any judgments about Bruno Retailleau’s intentions. All migration issues must be able to be studied with pragmatism.he justifies. That we can look at the basket of care and look at what is being done in other countries, abroad… This is what was commissioned by Gabriel Attal and Elisabeth Borne through the Juvin-Stefanini report, and it seems entirely legitimate to me.”
But several elected officials concede that this project does not have unanimous support within Gabriel Attal’s group and could even be a casus belli with the left wing.
This project to reduce AME is of course causing a storm of protest on the left. “This is nonsense. Viruses don’t look at people’s papers,” gets annoyed the rebellious Mathilde Panot, who points out the health risks. The ecologist Benjamin Lucas denounces, “an atmospheric racism and a measure that will not solve the financial problems.”
Socialist Arthur Delaporte sees in this proposal proof that the right “hard” came to power: “If the government wants to go back on this, unfortunately, it will be the path of the National Rally. But that is also what the hard right has been saying from the beginning. It must be remembered that Bruno Retailleau is one of those largely responsible for the vote, last December, of a law that was censored by a majority of the Constitutional Council.”
The left also cries out against the hijacking of public debate. This would be “incongruous and scandalous” that the Government reforms such a subject by decree, believes Arthur Delaporte, who therefore calls for a debate in Parliament.